TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1232
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the initiation of penalty proceedings is bad in law as the Assessing Officer has not specified the limb on which the penalty was proposed to be levied. The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the additional ground was filed challenging the initiation of penalty proceedings as bad in law. It is submitted that since the additional ground is purely a legal ground the same maybe admitted for adjudication. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., [229 ITR 383]. On hearing the rival contentions, the additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the initiation of penalty proceedings as bad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Sia Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd., v. DCIT in ITA.No. 365/Mum/2018 dated 05.03.2019. 4. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the Authorities below, notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiation of penalty proceedings, we find that Assessing Officer did not strike off and specify the charge/limb for which he is proposing to initiate the penalty proceedings. In the assessment order Assessing Officer stated that proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. However, in the penalty order passed it is stated that penalty is levied for furnishing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)] and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Samson Perinchery (supra) held that the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer is bad in law. 8. We further find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa in the case of Pr.CIT v. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Pvt. Ltd., in Tax Appeal No. 24 of 2019 dated 11.11.2019 held as under: - "5. We have carefully examined the record as well as duly considered the rival contentions. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the ITAT have categorically held that in the present case, there is no record of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer that there was any concealment of income or that any inaccurate particulars were furnished b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w Era Sova Mine(supra) and therefore, warrant no interference. 8. The contention based upon MAK Data (P.) Ltd.(supra) also does not appeal to us in the peculiar facts of the present case. The notice in the present case is itself is defective and further, there is no finding or satisfaction recorded in relation to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that no substantial questions of law arises in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed" 9. In the case of Pr.CIT v. New Era Sova Mine in Tax Appeal No. 70 of 2018 dated 18.06.2019 the Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa held as under: - "2. The subject matter of Appeals concerns penalty levied by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... merit admission. The Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed." 10. In the case of Pr.CIT v. Goa Dourado Promotions Pvt. Ltd., in Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2019 dated 26.11.2019 the Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa held as under: - "2. In this case, Ms. Linhares, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant urges that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration: - 1. Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in deleting the penalty by not considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2013 (38) Taxman.com 448? 2. Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in holding the penalty proceeding fatal for mere failure of the A.O to tick the relevant box in the show cause notice? ....